As for that “do you support blacklists?” argument:
Have any of Maher’s sponsors circulated his name to other sponsors or influential people in the broadcasting/entertainment industries as a person to be shunned? No? So this has nothing to do with blacklisting.
While it’s hard to discount personal disgust with Maher’s comments on the part of key executives as motivation for pulling advertising, I suspect that fears about the bottom line were the major reason for the action. Automatically assigning “corporate cowardice” as the motivation is an unworthy knee-jerk response.
And as for the heroism and bravery of the terrorists? They were every bit as brave as the estranged husband who fatally shoots his wife and then turns the gun on himself.
I believe blacklisting is relevant. The same arguments apply. After all, why should a company be forced to hire in any way a person that has been accused of being un-American? Advertisers wouldn’t support such a person on the airwaves. And isn’t it their right not to advertise if they detect an un-American tinge to the broadcast? So by the arguments already given in this debate, the infamous blacklist was perfectly reasonable.
I think spoke has it right. Advertisers have a moral obligation to support free speech as much as possible. To deny that doing business implies moral obligations is frightening to the extreme, and leads one to extremely scary conclusions.
I was shocked to see that Politically incorrect with bill Mahrer was still on the air. And here I thought he had been denied his free speech and had been blacklisted. Silly me.
That you continue to evade the question suggests either:
(a)that you do not find blacklists morally objectionable, but are afraid to come out and say so in this forum; or
(b)that you do find blacklists morally objectionable, but that you recognize that this stance would be inconsistent with (nay, irreconcilable with) the position you have taken in this thread.
The question is not a “strawman,” as you put it. If you truly believe that the “free market of ideas” works in the real world, then you must believe that blacklists are simply one more expression of that free market in action. By your lights (at least according to the arguments you have put forth so far), I would assume that a blacklist simply represents a decision by a company (such as a movie studio) that it does not want to have a business association with someone who has, at some point in the past, espoused a particular political view. In other words, they are withdrawing their financial support from that person (just as financial support has been withdrawn from Bill Maher’s program by its sponsors). See the parallel?
Now please answer the question. Do you or do you not find blacklists morally objectionable?
Robb also wrote:
You’ll find it in your dictionary next to a picture of the Federal Express logo.
tretiak wrote:
You miss the point, my sarcastic friend.
If advertisers have filled the void left by Federal Express, then good for them. Proves that there are some corporate decision-makers out there with some guts, and some sense of what America is really all about. It still doesn’t change the cowardly nature of the FedEx and Sears decisions.
Once again, I point out that Bill Maher was not, and never represented himself to be, a company spokesman for FedEx. He was the host of a talk show (called Politically Incorrect fer cryin’ out loud). Fed Ex paid for advertising on the show not because it was endorsing Maher’s views, but because it wanted to reach the man’s audience with its commercials. Conversely, when it withdrew those advertising dollars, it did so not because there was any indication Maher’s viewers were no longer there (FedEx didn’t wait for ratings figures), but rather to censor, through the power of the purse, Maher’s speech.
For the jillionth time, they had every legal right to do so. It was still a cowardly act, and one not in keeping with the spirit of American patriotism Fed Ex and Sears were purporting to uphold.
spoke-, you’re still going too far with too little. What I’ve been writing is that it is perfectly acceptable for a company not to pay for speech it disagrees with. A blacklist, as I understand it, is an organized effort to make certain that someone never works in this town again because of something he said or someone he associated himself with. They are morally obejectionable. A blacklist is an extteme I am not prepared to support. My argument doesn’t take you there.
I haven’t answered your question because it hasn’t mattered to my argument. It still doesn’t. I’m still prepared to bet that the only answer you will accept is that I support blacklists.
Again. FedEx hasn’t taken steps to push Maher off the air, mhendo’s views notwithstanding. Let’s assume that FedEx begins to pressure ABC to move Maher to the coveted 3 A.M. spot. This isn’t supported my argument.
An idea gets floated. People listen to it or they don’t. This is factors of magnitude different from a blacklist, where people vigorously hunt down the purveyors of thoughts and remove those people’s ability to work.
Now, would you do me the courtesy of finding the blacklist in reality as it relates to Maher?
That’s not an accurate description of what happened with Maher. FedEx didn’t decide “not to pay for speech it disagreed with.” They had already paid to advertise on the night Maher’s comments aired. Thus they had already “paid for speech they disagreed with.” What FedEx and Sears were doing by withdrawing their advertising was to try to shut off future speech that Maher might utter.
Precisely what a blacklist is for, no? The only difference with a blacklist is that a group of companies get together and make the decision as a unit.
I know we’ve all received a whole slew of email forwards relating to the WTC attack, but this article - and the petition - might be something really worth forwarding to your friends.
One more thing in response to this remark by Tretiak:
As it turns out, at least three ABC affiliates have already withdrawn the show, including the Washington, D.C. affiliate (according to the Huffington article). So Tretiak, if you can still watch the show count yourself lucky. As for the rest of us, if we want to keep this show on the air, we need to get busy.
You’ve been wondering what you could do to help since the WTC attack? Here’s something you can do. Make your voice heard.
spoke-, if you read what I write, you’d have a lot fewer questions for me. What I support FedEX doing is disaassociating themselves with Maher. Please read that as many times as it takes for you to understand it.
You somehow conflate not paying with suppressing. I think that is an unsupported connection. You then go factors of magnitude beyond this, and conflate not paying with an active campaign to make certain that Maher never again works in this town. But, I’ve written this before. You don’t appear to wish to address it. I’ve noticed that in all your whining about what I didn’t answer, you’ll not answer the question I ask you, or address what I’ve written before asking me a question your could determine the answer to on your own.
So, to recap the recap of the recap:
not paying for speech = OK
attacking the speaker (blacklist) = not OK
not paying for speech does not equal attacking the speaker.
Here, you impute motives you don’t know exist:
Now you’re tell us that you know what was in their minds. You can tell me, without any doubt, that their intentions were the rather sinister, make certian that Maher gets off the air? Can you then support that statement?
What’s funny spoke-, I work in a business where determining a person’s intent is vital. The way we do it, is by looking at their actions. To support your view, you need to also show where FedEx to active steps to convince other advertisers to stop advertising, steps to keep new advertisers from advertising, and steps to pressure ABC to remove Maher from the air. Contrasy to your hopes and wishes, it is only the last three that would be part of a blacklist.
But, you fail to even hint at the above things. Instead, we have only that they stopped advertising. Given the actions we know about, we can’t supportably impute evil intentions to FedEx.
Again, I think that you’ve proven that you don’t know what you are talking about:
Blacklisting, if memory serves, suggests that an entire industry decided that certain people shouldn’t work, be they labor organizers, or Communists, or any other evil group de jour. A laborer in New York might have found that he could no longer work in New York, so he moved to Chicago. But, there he found that they already knew his name and wouldn’t hire him. This then repeated itself in Detroit, and St. Louis, and every other city he tried to find work. This is a blacklist. This is wrong.
The best that you can come up with, is two companies pulling advertising. This isn’t an entire industry secretly deciding not to hire Maher, or to not advertise on Maher’s show.
So, no it isn’t what a blacklist is for and you do not correctly assess the only difference. Keep trying though, many posts ago you made a smidgen of progress.
The only thing I can think of that supports your notion, is that lovely idea that the best conspiracy isn’t even known. Its a hell of a thing to use to support an argument, though.
You misapprehend the concept of “marketplace of ideas”, spoke-. Where the “marketplace of ideas” was taking action was when Maher first spoke the words. He was not refrained or prohibited from speaking the words, popular or unpopular as they might turn out to be.
Now, the words are spoken and are known. Hell, the fact that we are discussing this now (where I am I’m sure many others in this thread did not watch the show in question) proves that the “marketplace of ideas” works. Now, the words are being judged to determine if they have value. FedEx has determined that they don’t, and do not want to be associated with the speaker of the words, much like I’m sure the Wisconsin legislature won’t be inviting Reggie White back any time soon. Is that legislature cowardly? I’m sure part of the reason they won’t let Reggie speak to them anymore about the differences between the races is because they don’t want to upset their constituents.
FedEx’s decision doesn’t mean that the words, and the idea, Maher was expressing have been suppressed. Quite obviously, they haven’t. It simply means that, on the past evidence, they don’t want to support his future words, much like I don’t read the National Enquirer.
spoke-, it occurs to me that you’ll be whining that I didn’t address this question:
To begin with, if its not in some manner organized it isn’t a blacklist. One entity can’t do much of a blacklist on its own.
Further, my objection to a blacklist is that it is an attack on the person, not the person’s ideas. A blacklist is an attempt to make certain that the person doesn’t work, and therefore doesn’t eat. Are you missing that it is fundamentally different than what you have described actually happening?
Now, spoke-, you aren’t helping your argument by clinging to a strawman of your own creation that I don’t support. Stick to what I’ve wrote. If you want to stick to the idea that I like blacklists, at least try to understand what a blacklist is.
So tonight Bill Mahrer comes on and says, “Personally I think that gays and lesbians should be isolated in camps. It must be the Jewish conspiracy that keeps ourt country under their heel. I think it is time to exterminate all the Zionists. And I wish those lazy Mexicans would go back to their country. I could really go for some hot 13 year old filipino girl lovin’. Stupid black people, ruining everything for our pure white race.”
Yes it is a ridiculous example, but can those who argue that FedEx et al are being cowards support that if companies pulled advertising in light of comments like these? Do they have a responsibility to free speech as you claim and therefore need to stick by this in order to prove thier dedication? I would hope not. I would hope that nobody would consider it anyone’s responsibility to support speech they simply do not agree with.
Correct! Unfortunate, in this whole debate, Mr. D’Souza ( http://www.dineshdsouza.com/ ) has escaped responsability for the being the one to start the whole argument. Basically, he interrupted Maher and stated (IIRC) “I would like address another PC word “coward” that is being used to label these terrorists,” and on he went with astorians recollection. Where in the HELL is Dinesh?
Au contraire,Robespierre! The difference between a blacklist and the behavior of Sears and FedEx is one of degree rather than kind.
How do you suppose Hollywood decided which writers, actors and directors to put on its blacklist, my friend? Do you suppose an individual’s name could have wound up on the list because someone didn’t like their looks? No, the list was comprised of people whose ideas and associations were considered “dangerous.”
In other words, you are creating a false dichotomy to conceal the inconsistency in your arguments. There is no substantive difference between the Hollywood blacklist and what FedEx has done. The only difference is that with the blacklist all “sponsors” decided together to cease business relations with the offending individuals. In other words, the only difference was in the degree of organization involved.
The parallels are pretty obvious, I should think. In both cases, you have right-wing zealots whipping their followers into a frenzy about “un-American” ideas. In both cases, you have corporate big-wigs panicking, and then frantically trying to dissociate themselves from the “un-American” individual. In both cases, cowardice is on display.
If anything, the FedEx situation reeks more strongly of cowardly behavior, since Maher’s comments were taken out of context and blown out of all proportion, entirely without regard for everything else the man has ever said on his show. At least in the case of the Hollywood blacklist, they were dealing with honest-to-gosh Communists (oh my!). (Well, at least some of the victims were, or had been Communists.) Bill Maher, on the other hand, has faced the equivalent of a corporate lynch mob for an off-the-cuff comment.
Tell me, do you really think FedEx officials withdrew advertising because of a reasoned and measured decision that they disagreed with Maher? Or do you think they were caving in to angry phone calls from ill-informed talk radio listeners?
SuaSponte wrote:
Not at all. I just understand how it works in the real world.
And…
I’m sure they would have stopped that broadcast if they could have. (Had they known a bunch of knee-jerking talk radio listeners would be lighting up their switchboards). But once the cat was out of the bag, they did the next best thing: put the kibosh on future speech by Maher.
Two problems: The sudden withdrawal of advertising leaves Maher in a lurch. ABC might not have time to find additional sponsors, in which case, the show will be doomed by lack of revenue (unless a white-knight advertiser comes onto the scene).
Secondly, even if FedEx and Sears were to return to their sponsorship of the show, Maher might wind up walking on eggshells, careful of what he might say, lest he offend his sponsors (or some yahoo talk radio host). Thus, his speech is chilled. We may miss some future insight from Maher because he may be afraid to utter it.
Now maybe this doesn’t bother you. Maybe you can tell yourself that this is a “free” market of ideas in action. Doesn’t seem so free to me. Seems to me that what we get to hear on the public airwaves is being decided by a corporate board.
Robb wrote:
I tremble before your majesty. :rolleyes:
You know what else is funny, Robb? I also work in a profession where determining intent is important. In my profession, you also get pretty good at figuring out when people are lying about their intent.
Hey! Another crazy coincidence! That’s just how we do it!
Here’s the sequence of events we’re working with:[ol][li]One of Maher’s guests quibbles with the use of the word “cowardly” to describe the terrorists.[]Maher makes an off-the-cuff comment that it might be considered cowardly to lob cruise missiles at someone from 2000 miles away.[]Some talk radio jockey hears this, and a lightbulb flashes above his head.[]Said talk radio host distorts Maher’s comments, accusing him of calling Americans cowards and being an apologist for the terrorists. He works his listeners into a frenzy.[]Listeners, at radio shock jock’s behest, light up the switch boards at FedEx and Sears.[]Fed Ex and Sears, responding to these calls, cut off advertising.[]FedEx and Sears do this without considering (apparently) the many pro-US-military comments Bill Maher has made in the past on his show.[]FedEx and Sears cut off advertising without waiting to see if Maher’s ratings have been affected.[]Radio shock jock calls Politically Incorrect to try to land a guest spot on the show. [/ol][/li]
The haste of the FedEx and Sears response leads me to conclude that their motive was craven panic. Their switchboards light up, and they tuck their tails between their legs and run. That is cowardly, pure and simple. (To take this back to the OP.)
And another thing: What do you make of the fact that FedEx and Sears didn’t wait to see what happened to Maher’s ratings? You have argued that their only responsibility is to shareholders, right? So the political views of company officials shouldn’t take priority over the bottom line, right? What if Maher’s ratings actually went up as a result of the controversy (meaning FedEx’s advertising would reach more viewers)? Heck, their revenues might have increased. They didn’t wait to find out. Shamefully abdicated their responsibility to shareholders, I’d say.
Y’all need a great deal more practice.
Remember spoke-, when we are trying to determine an individual’s intent from his actions, we need to focus on that person’s actions. From your list, you only put one on FedEx, then you repeat it.
The remainder of your list is irrelevant or your speculation.
So, you’re still stuck with mind-reading, which is another thing you need to practice more.
And you’ve asked,
Which isn’t what I’ve argued at all. So, you should just argue this amongst yourself, as you did at the end of your paragraph.
spoke-, if you plan to just make things up, why don’t you just argue both sides and save the rest of us the bother?
Wow, with friends like you…
Again, try reading what I write. Please. I wouldn’t have to repeat myself so much.
I have never denied that a blacklist is based on a person’s ideas or speech, indeed I cannot deny it. The point, that you blithely continue to miss, is what is done with that list. Blacklists, which predate Hollywood, imply steps to suppress the people. Read that as many times as it takes to get into your mind.
You’ve taken this blacklist thing so far out on a limb you can’t even comprehend when you got to a different tree. Stop, look around. Tell me how you got there, 'cause I can’t find your path.
Think about that spoke-. Remember when you started this? You thought that FedEx was failing to uphold free speech by pulling their ads. Now, you’ve wandered off into writing that what FedEx did was the moral equivalent of a blacklist. I didn’t want you to get so far afield. Now you’re invoking the evils of McCarthy in some attempt to shore up your argument. You’ve imploded your own argument and now you’re writing about things that have no basis in fact. You use speculation as a fact and build that as the foundation of your argument. Do you have that little faith in your original premise that you would so thoroughly abandon it? Do you think it helps you much to invent arguments and attribute them to me? spoke-, I found some other people who need your words of wisdom.
I can think of numerous instances in which Bill Maher has said stupid, offensive things. If I were an advertiser, I might very well have boycotted his show by now. It just so happens that, in THIS instance at least, I agree with Maher’s main point.
In recent years, it has often appeared that the U.S. government is terrified of losing even a single American serviceman. As a result, when we’ve decided to strike against our enemies, we’ve used long-range missiles, or (as in Iraq and the Balkans), we’ve had pilots drop bombs from a very safe distance.
I do NOT accuse any American serviceman of cowardice. But our strategies have certainly given our enemies reason to believe that we’re cowards. Small wonder, then, that Osama Bin Laden struck with impunity, expecting that, at most, the U.S. would “fire ten million dollar missiles at ten dollar tents, and hit a few camels in the a**”
In this case, Bill Maher was on the mark, just as Dinesh D’Souza was 100% correct to scoff at the notion that suicide bombers are cowards. Say what you will about them, they’re ready and willing to die to defeat us. They are NOT cowards, any more than Japanese kamikazes were.
But while I support Maher in this instance (he’s always been very admiring and supportive of U.S. troops, incidentally), I also support any advertiser’s right to remove financial support from any program it thinks has gone over the line.
If you disagree, consider THESE example of “blacklisting.”
Reggie White was the TV spokesman for Campbell’s Soup. Have you seen him doing any soup commercials lately? No! That’s because, in the wake of his foolish, racist statements before the Wisconsin legislature, Campbell’s was afraid of offending customers. They dumped Reggie like a hot potato.
John Rocker had numerous lucrative endorsement deals. All of them vanished, after his idiotic interview with Sports Illustrated.
Numerous charitable organizations have withdrawn their financial support of the Boy Scouts, due to the Scouts’ refusal to accept gay scoutmasters.
Spoke: are the sponsors in THESE cases guilty of “blacklisting”? Do they have a moral obligation to keep paying Reggie White and John Rocker to endorse their products? Do liberals have an obligation to keep funding the Boy Scouts?
I must have missed where people called the terrorists “brave”… lack of cowardice does not equal bravery. The guys who flew the planes were evil and horrible and all sorts of other things… but a coward couldn’t have done what they did. WHy is this such a hard point for some people to swallow? No one is giving kudos to the terrorists, we’re just saying that their actions weren’t cowardly. Their actions weren’t a lot of things… it doesn’t lessen the scorn we have for them to not tack on a particular label. I mean if I were to say that I didn’t think that the actions of the terrorists meant that they were lousy in bed, would people get up at arms claiming that I’m calling them marvelous lovers and heros? No… it just happens to be a negative that doesn’t (or doesn’t neccessarily) apply to the current situation.
In wartime, cowardice is not defined by the nature of the act. If there are strategic reasons to run like hell, then you run like hell. That’s not cowardice, it’s following a battle plan.
It’s cowardice if a soldier refuses to carry out an order simply because he can’t muster the will to do it. But the U.S. has given its soldiers orders that may have looked ‘cowardly’, and the men who followed those orders were not cowards, but good soldiers. For instance, Carlos Hathcock was a sniper who carried out orders to sneak up to the enemy, shoot someone from 1000 yards away, and then sneak out. Is he a coward?
The terrorists were not cowards, nor were they necessarily sociopaths. I have no problem admitting that they carried out their orders to their logical conclusion. It’s their cause that is evil, and their method of ‘attack’.
Do we need to call them cowards in order to make the attack look worse? Just one look at ground zero should give you all the information you need to know that what was done was very, very evil. Even if the attackers were not cowards.